Monday's filing said the Patriots quarterback's "wishful effort to analogize the conduct here to the misuse of 'stickum' ignores both the serious nature of the misconduct and the substantial discretion conferred on the Commissioner by the CBA to determine and to discipline conduct detrimental to the game."

Brady's legal team argued the CBA of 2011 does not allow commissioner Roger Goodell to act as an arbitrator, which Goodell appointed himself in hearing Brady's initial appeal in June. The union said the CBA does not give Goodell "unlimited authority to discipline players however he pleases."

Brady's four-game suspension, which Goodell upheld in June, was vacated by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in September. In the brief earlier this month, Brady's team argued that his suspension was without precedent and did not comply with what the league has called "conduct detrimental."

The NFL obviously disagrees, stating Monday that Goodell was within his rights and that vacating the suspension served to undermine the commissioner's authority in matters deemed "conduct detrimental" to league integrity.

"They would provide a road map for demanding the Commissioner’s recusal in every player discipline proceeding despite the parties’ express agreement that the Commissioner makes 'conduct detrimental' determinations and has the sole discretion to serve as the arbitrator in appeals involving game-related 'conduct detrimental,'" the brief says.

"Federal courts do not sit to second-guess an arbitrator’s reasoned conclusions. Instead, the judiciary must enforce an arbitrator’s award if it “draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement."

The NFL also shot down Brady's defense that first-time offenders of the league's uniform policy that specifies a fine for "first-time football tampering" is not applicable and does not "trump the Commissioner’s collectively-bargained conduct detrimental authority."

"Having argued that the Uniform Policy was not even applicable, it takes considerable chutzpah to attack the Commissioner for declining to explain why he agreed with them (and everyone else) on that issue—and even greater temerity to argue that Brady lacked 'fair notice' that his discipline was not governed by a policy that (Brady's) own lawyers deemed inapplicable," the league brief stated. "Even a quick glance at the policy reveals that it concerns players wearing the wrong color shoes or failing to tuck in their jerseys, not schemes to deflate footballs before championship games. The policy is addressed to players because it concerns (as its name suggests) a player’s uniform and the equipment on a player’s body."

The NFL later blamed Berman for his refusal to accept the league's "factual findings," insisting that Brady knowingly participated in the plot to deflate footballs used during last January's AFC championship game.

"Based on the additional evidence offered at the hearing, the Commissioner found that Brady had not merely failed to cooperate fully, but that he had 'willfully obstructed the investigation by, among other things, affirmatively arranging for destruction of his cellphone knowing that it contained potentially relevant information that had been requested by the investigators,'" league attorneys wrote. "Finally, (Brady's) repeated refrain that the discipline imposed here was unprecedented ignores the Commissioner’s factual finding that the misconduct was unprecedented.

"The Commissioner found that Brady’s actions were 'fundamentally different from' any previous case to which any party attempted to compare it. He therefore brought his interpretation of the CBA and his experience as Commissioner to bear on this unique set of facts to fashion a remedy that reasonably reflected the nature and seriousness of the offense."

Arguments in the case are expected to be heard as early as the week of Feb. 7, after Super Bowl 50. The NFL said the Second Circuit Court should "enter judgment enforcing the Commissioner’s award, rather than remanding the case for further proceedings."